Akshay Gajanan Amaravatkar vs State through P.S.O.P.S. Washim City — 88/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--BAIL REFUSED on 30th March 2026.

Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application

CNR: MHWS010003032026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

13-03-2026

Filing Number

172/2026

Filing Date

13-03-2026

Registration No

88/2026

Registration Date

16-03-2026

Court

District and Sessions Court, Washim

Judge

6-District Judge-1 and ASJ, Washim

Decision Date

30th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--BAIL REFUSED

FIR Details

FIR Number

981

Police Station

WASHIM CITY

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

Akshay Gajanan Amaravatkar

Adv. GAWALI VISHNU JAGANNATH

Respondent(s)

State through P.S.O.P.S. Washim City

Hearing History

Judge: 6-District Judge-1 and ASJ, Washim

30-03-2026

Disposed

25-03-2026

Hearing

24-03-2026

Reply/Say

23-03-2026

Reply/Say

20-03-2026

Reply/Say

Final Orders / Judgements

30-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: Akshay Gajanan Amaravatkar v. State (88/2026) The Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, rejected Akshay Gajanan Amaravatkar's anticipatory bail application on 30/03/2026. The applicant was accused of falsely identifying a property vendor before the Sub Registrar, enabling execution of a fraudulent sale deed for a disputed plot that was sold four times between August-November 2025 through forgery. The court found his role "major at par with vendor and vendee" and held this was not a fit case for anticipatory bail given the serious nature of offences (including Section 338 BNS punishable with life imprisonment) and evidence of conspiracy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Akshay Gajanan Amaravatkar v. State (88/2026) The Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, rejected Akshay Gajanan Amaravatkar's anticipatory bail application on 30/03/2026. The applicant was accused of falsely identifying a property vendor before the Sub Registrar, enabling execution of a fraudulent sale deed for a disputed plot that was sold four times between August-November 2025 through forgery. The court found his role "major at par with vendor and vendee" and held this was not a fit case for anticipatory bail given the serious nature of offences (including Section 338 BNS punishable with life imprisonment) and evidence of conspiracy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Sessions Court, Washim All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case